Comments

  1. SKOC211 says

    Great to see that the OWN network is giving these lovely TOTALLY not bigoted people a platform.

    Ohhhhh but it’s to “let us decide.” Ok, that makes it better.

    I expect next they’ll be doing a special covering the KKK and the NAACP so that, we, the viewer, might decide. Right?

    The mere suggestion that there is a debate over “sexuality versus spirituality” is offensive. One is an immutable aspect of one’s being, another is choice in religious beliefs. There is no “versus” between the two.

  2. SteveC says

    Unless Lisa Ling states unequivocally that ALL medical and psychiatric experts experts state that sexuality cannot be ‘cured’ then she is giving a platform to dangerous bigotry. If this is the case then Ling needs to be condemned for legitimising dangerous malpractise. And Winfrey should be condemned fo giving a platform to malpractise.

  3. oneway says

    As Joe Jervis says over at Joy.My.God… most of these confirmed “ex-gays” also have a history of substance abuse. Then, along their road to health, their gayness gets thrown in the mix as something that needs “fixing”.

    Surely, there’s no “ex-lefty” movement for recovering addicts who are naturally left-handed.

  4. TANK says

    “ET will talk to representatives from both sides of the issue” Both sides? More false equivalency bullshit from Oprah and Co. There’s the truth and there are the lies. Being “ex-gay” is a lie.

  5. SteveC says

    Shocked and very disappointed that Winfrey or Ling think that there is a ‘debate’ to be had on this issue. These ‘ex-gay cures’ are psychiatric abuse. Time to boycott OWN for legitimising bigotry?

  6. Brian in Texas says

    Previous episodes have been about transgender individuals, sex offenders, faith healers, drug addiction, and online brides. The aim of the show is just to shine a light on “controversial issues” and those in society that don’t get a lot of attention.

    Most people don’t believe that you can “pray the gay away”. Hence that is what makes it controversial.

    On the transgender episode there was no one on the “other side” to say that transgenderism is a farce. It simply showed the experiences of varied transgendered individuals and their families.

    It’s not the typical cable news debate where they have to give time to each “side”. It’s a very quality program.

  7. Stephen Murray says

    Winfrey has always claimed to be a campaigner against abuse. If she thinks there is a legitimate ‘debate’ to be had about ex-gay quackery, then clearly Oprah Winfrey condones psychological abuse. Disgusting and offensive, and most importantly EXTREMELY dangerous if viewed by a psycologically vulnerable gay person. Shame on Winfrey, shame on Ling. They seem to be ambivalent about the dangers of abuse.

  8. BartB says

    All you have to do is look at the ex-gays. The only thing that ex- is their reality. These are simply gay men in major denial. Just because you close your eyes really, really tight and dream of Bradley Cooper while you’re slipping it to your wife for three minutes in the hopes of making a baby so the world quits questioning your sexuality and you and your wife can go on living the grand lie (but it’s never a lie to the man who is simply scared of who he REALLY is or has been socially or religiously bullied so badly he hates himself) doesn’t make you straight. If you’re sexually attracted to men and having sex with your wife, you’re still gay.

    I think if you’re in that position and you’re relying on prayer, I would pray no one notices you. There’s probably a higher average than actually changing your sexual attraction.

  9. Stephen Murray says

    Sean – no-one is over-reacting. Ling and Winfrey are claiming there is a ‘debate’ to be had over proven psychological abuse. That deserves condemnation.

  10. just a guy says

    what pisses me off most about these “ex-gays” is that they think they speak for gay people, and they think they are in a position to judge gay people. no. and no. if you truly are now living a satisfied hetero life, then you were BIsexual and just emphasizing your interest in the same sex previously. (Either that, or you are full of SH** on even what you claim about YOURSELF.)

    Because I am correct about any real “ex-gay” being BIsexual and NOT HOMOsexual, the only thing I can say about these “ex-gays” is that they are A***OLES, because they don’t give a SH** for HOMOsexuals. Not to be a bi-hater, but isn’t this sort of attitude and bigotry TYPICAL of too many BI-sexuals, whether they spent some time pretending to be gay or not??!!

    BIsexuals need to stand up for LGBT rights already. I think studies suggest there are more BIs in reality than even gays…if only we could get BI people to think positively about THEIR (and everyone else’s) sexualities for a change, BTLG rights would benefit…

    Any real “ex-gay” is just a self-loathing bisexual. Be REAL already, a***ole “ex-gays.” The very name “ex-gay” is an insult to bisexuality, any REAL “ex-gay”‘s true sexuality. (Never mind that the term “ex-gay” is hugely offensive to anyone truly gay.)

  11. says

    If you do not believe in freedom of speech for people you despise, you do not believe in it at all. Noam Chomsky

    if praying the gay away was that easy they are going need a vigil to get the gay out of the first guy featured. AMEN

  12. jj says

    the program is about showing real people in America – whether you agree with them or not, whether they are right or wrong – this is the truth, they exist and this is whats happening out there. its saying “this person could be living next door – here’s a glimpse into their lives.” i watched it, excellent compared to most other things on TV.

  13. ajw18 says

    Although I agree with everyone’s comments about the fallacy that is “praying the gay away,” I think it is still interesting to hear the other side. I think most people that are watching OWN probably already believe this is a crock. The trailer seems to indicate more of a delusion/sadness about these stories than about supposed redemption.

  14. Jake Netherton says

    wait, wait, wait, WAIT!!! I think as a journalist, Lisa Ling, is not half bad. I’m sure that she’ll also expose that some of the original founders of Exodus are now ex-ex-gay. Meaning they are now once again full-fledged card carrying homosexuals.

  15. Brian in Texas says

    Yes, the above 2 posters nailed it. This is not about debating “can gay people be changed through prayer?”

    It’s simply allowing them to tell their stories and shining a light on these people that exist whether there is a tv show featuring them or not.

    Most of the public whether they are devoutly religious or not truly don’t believe you can become straight through prayer and turning to Jesus. We are who we are.

  16. NW Rich says

    I’m an out proud gay many who is also proud to state A) I have never seen a full Opra program, I work for a living and I’m not home with my feet on the sofa and a pint of Ben and Jerry’s during the day, better things to do and B) I proudly do not have cable and would have no idea where (nor care) where this new “important” network is. GET A LIFE AMERICA!! Off the couch and away from the boob tube READ A BOOK, preferably not the Bible, I’ve read it and it was totally unbelievable in the end.

  17. harold says

    i found the show about gays and relegion interesting.
    you talk about uncondiotional love,its true god loves everybody ,but love and salvation are two different things.salvation is not unconditional

  18. scar2 says

    I saw Ling on The View discussing this. It’s pretty clear she doesn’t believe in the ex-gay practices & simply wanted to report on it. She also visits a gay Christian camp for youth during the show. I think some people here are over-reacting. I think most people who watch it will see how ridiculous the ex-gay practices are. Even the people running the group admit in the show they still have gay feelings & simply just choose to suppress it.

  19. Tonic says

    Did any of you condemning this show watch it?

    Ling served as a true journalist (rare nowadays) presenting reality. She wasn’t promoting “ex-gays”(there’s no such thing really, and that was apparent in the show) but let their own behavior, desperation and unhappiness provide it’s own damnation.

    For me, the show demonstrated the need for strong, healthy gays and lesbians to live honestly and unashamed. Many of the “ex-gays” chose their route because they only think gay life is anonymous gay sex, drugs and that relationships and/or children are not possible. If they had positive gay role models, they might not try to kill their personalities and chances for happiness by living lives of futility. Not to mention that some who are gay only *think* they want married w/children lives because that’s the only option they’ve ever been presented. Without exploration and education, it will be difficult for them to realized that each individual decides what they want and how to get it.

  20. Stephen Murray says

    Tonic says “Ling served as a true journalist presenting reality. She wasn’t promoting “ex-gays”(there’s no such thing really, and that was apparent in the show) but let their own behavior, desperation and unhappiness provide it’s own damnation”

    I can’t remember the last time the KKK or a neo-nazi group were allowed to let their own behaviour provide its own damnation.

    Why the double standard.

    Ling’s report was sleazy and homophobic.

  21. Tonic says

    @Stephen Murray

    I just watched an entire program on the KKK which took no stance whatsoever – it didn’t have to – their actions and beliefs spoke volumes. It was one of the saddest and most comprehensive programs on them that I’ve seen.

    So you did watch this report? Because Ling expressed sorrow over one guy trying so desperately to suppress who he was, showed the ex-Exodus founder explain how the Exodus group only hurts people and pushes them to depression and suicide, and spotlighted groups of “Christians” who accept and help gays. Even showing the current leader of Exodus showed how laughable it is (since he’s gayer than Liza Minelli’s next husband). I understand if your opinion is different, but I def didn’t see it as remotely sleazy.

Leave A Reply